Sexually transmitted diseases · 2009
Alternative approaches to partner notification, diagnosis, and treatment: pharmacists' perspectives on proposed patient delivered partner therapy in New York State, 2007.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
McNutt Louise-Anne, Davis Christopher F, Bednarczyk Robert A, Fischer Andrea, Zeolla Mario, Coles Bruce F
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Supported by the American Medical Association, patient delivered partner therapy (PDPT) is becoming legal in many states. For some individuals exposed to sexually transmitted infections, the pharmacist may become the sole point of contact with the medical system.
METHODS: To determine pharmacists' perceptions about PDPT, education on sexually transmitted infections, and potential barriers that need to be addressed in pharmacies for successful implementation of PDPT, we conducted a survey of pharmacists and observed privacy-related spaces in pharmacies. In 8 counties of the Capital Region, all community pharmacies were invited to participate. In 8 additional counties convenience sampling was utilized. The response proportion was 67.3% overall.
RESULTS: Of the 193 pharmacists responding to the survey, 63% supported PDPT for Chlamydia and 78% do not want a behind-the-counter status for Chlamydia antibiotics. The majority (88%) of pharmacists want prescriptions marked as PDPT to alert them to counseling needs. About half the pharmacists reported they would automatically submit PDPT prescriptions to insurance company, a confidentiality issue. The barrier cited most often to patient counseling was time (49%).
CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists are open to considering PDPT as part of their professional functions. Although pharmacists need additional sexually transmitted infections education in general, capacity for this training can be developed. Confidentiality issues remain a priority issue to address to protect individuals treated through PDPT.
METHODS: To determine pharmacists' perceptions about PDPT, education on sexually transmitted infections, and potential barriers that need to be addressed in pharmacies for successful implementation of PDPT, we conducted a survey of pharmacists and observed privacy-related spaces in pharmacies. In 8 counties of the Capital Region, all community pharmacies were invited to participate. In 8 additional counties convenience sampling was utilized. The response proportion was 67.3% overall.
RESULTS: Of the 193 pharmacists responding to the survey, 63% supported PDPT for Chlamydia and 78% do not want a behind-the-counter status for Chlamydia antibiotics. The majority (88%) of pharmacists want prescriptions marked as PDPT to alert them to counseling needs. About half the pharmacists reported they would automatically submit PDPT prescriptions to insurance company, a confidentiality issue. The barrier cited most often to patient counseling was time (49%).
CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists are open to considering PDPT as part of their professional functions. Although pharmacists need additional sexually transmitted infections education in general, capacity for this training can be developed. Confidentiality issues remain a priority issue to address to protect individuals treated through PDPT.